The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors will also be considering this project. About 20 percent of the line is in Fairfax County.

by mhuston on Jul 20, 2012 11:30 am • link • report

No need to tell the Board - it is virtually a done deal. They decided a long time ago to build that streetcar, and although they have been going through the motions of soliciting community input, there was never really a chance of it not being approved. They may allow Tejada to vote against it, so he can show support to the Latino community that is concerned about affordable housing being lost, and Garvey might vote against it too, since she is running for reelection and wants to show that she is "independent." But that is all choreography by the single political party that runs Arlington, and then streetcar would be approved by a 3-2 vote, the Board having shown "independence" and a "diversity of viewpoints." There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the streetcar is not going to be approved.

by Cynical Arlingtonian on Jul 20, 2012 11:32 am • link • report

@Cynical Arlingtonian: +1 -- not to mention that to derail the streetcar at this point would be to really stick it to the developers who have already begun rebuilding the eastern end of Columbia Pike and hundreds, if not thousands, of homeowners who have purchased homes on the Pike corridor with the expectation that the streetcar is a done deal.

by Arl Fan on Jul 20, 2012 11:39 am • link • report

@Cynical Arlingtonian

Sounds good to me! The best result wins in the end, regardless of what it took to get there, I will take it!

by Kyle W on Jul 20, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report

"The best result" would have been heavy rail - a logical realignment of the Blue Line that would serve Columbia Pike and the Mark Center before continuing to Van Dorn.

But of course, Metro will never happen now; what Arlingtonians are getting instead is a bus on rails that will do nothing to resolve the mobility challenges foisted on the corridor, and we're supposed to be happy for it because it's not a highway that would have been ridiculous to build from the start?

by J.D. Hammond on Jul 20, 2012 12:48 pm • link • report

Back in the 90s, I lived on S. Scott St. for a year before moving to a place closer to Metro because transit options on the Pike were deplorable (memories of waiting 45 minutes for a bus at the Pentagon). Living within the Beltway I refused to own a car and instead rely on what I was told was a great mass transit system. And in many respects Metro is. However, many areas are underserved or completely neglected, including the Pike. Metro should have been built here years ago (there is a turnout built at the Pentagon station for a proposed line down the corridor). I'm not sure a streetcar is the solution, though. I now live in SF and the lightrail vehicles chug along the surface with the delights of traffic taking forever to get us to our destinations. Occasionally we have bus substitution and quite frankly it's faster than the stop-start antics of the LRVs every two or three blocks. Of course, from development and real estate perspectives trains are cooler and more attractive than buses. However, unless the tracks have a dedicated ROW then you're really only paying for looks versus efficiency.

by Mark on Jul 20, 2012 2:03 pm • link • report

there isnt money currently for an additional heavy rail line, not too mention the issues with core capacity. If anything, by increasing density on the corridor (along with the beauregard transitway serving Mark Center to Van Dorn) we probably make a FUTURE heavy rail line on this corridor more feasible.

Meanwhile we get the ability to accommodate growing transit usage on Columbia Pike - and the option to expand up route 7 to Baileys and Seven Corners.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 20, 2012 2:39 pm • link • report

Well only thing you can do is push for the right kind of housing and attractions and retail on the pike to make it it's own little self sustaining corridor. Because that is the only way the streetcar will be vindicated in the future.

by Billy Bob on Jul 20, 2012 2:51 pm • link • report

I don't expect to see this happen but what is really needed is a dedicated right of way. The French did it by taking away lanes from cars. Good luck with that here. http://www.alexblock.net/blog/?p=2381

by Kevin Diffily on Jul 20, 2012 3:07 pm • link • report

Is there any reason heavy rail lines have to go through the core other than cultural inertia? What about feeding lines to Rosslyn and the Pentagon were they'd terminate and then switch to a cross over the river line. What about a train that goes from the Pentagon to Rosslyn and then in reverse to alleviate the major north-south issue that recent changes have caused.

by Kevin Diffily on Jul 20, 2012 3:14 pm • link • report

There isn't money currently for heavy rail in Los Angeles, either, but that hasn't stopped Villaraigosa from pushing for financing innovations in order to get it.

by J.D. Hammond on Jul 20, 2012 3:18 pm • link • report

Is there any reason heavy rail lines have to go through the core other than cultural inertia?

Because we want transit to be efficient, and in order to be efficient it has to run along routes that lots of people use? It also has to serve areas where people can get from transit to their destination on foot or with an easy transfer.

What about feeding lines to Rosslyn and the Pentagon were they'd terminate and then switch to a cross over the river line.
Not sure why this would be better than just connecting the tracks (which doesn't cost much compared to building the miles-long line) and making the train run straight through so peopled don't have to transfer. Why would you want the line to stop and then have another line begin?

What about a train that goes from the Pentagon to Rosslyn and then in reverse to alleviate the major north-south issue that recent changes have caused.
This is impossible without building a separate station platform for this shuttle train. You can't have a train backing on and off the mainline when you have other trains coming through every 3 minutes. There just isn't enough time to make it work.

by MLD on Jul 20, 2012 3:23 pm • link • report

@kevin Duffy

putting the number of people who would ride a new heavy rail line up 1395/col pike (who would have to to justify it) is going to mean more trains across the river (cause thats where most folks are going) whether you stop the trains on the new line at the Pentagon or run them over.

@JD hammond

Folks here are looking for creative financing too. DC is for their street cars, FFX is using a TIF and DTR tolls for the silver line, LoCo is using a TIF, Arlington-Alex is using a TIF I think for CCPY, and I suspect Arlington will need go get creative for Col Pike Rail. And certainly creativity will be needed to finance the river crossing.

But you can't just say "get creative" and get an unlimited amount of funds.

and note, when you do, and you have the crossing, yuo will still need to compete with the orange line extension, and probably some heavy rail extension toward Ft Belvoir.

AFAICT the discussion of heavy rail on I395/ColPike just serves to distract from the realistic short to medium term (within the next 20 years) choices - Light rail, or no rail.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 20, 2012 3:43 pm • link • report

There are a number of issues with the streetcar which is got most people upset about, including:
1) The streetcar will not raise the capacity of the public transit along the line from its current levels to warrant the expense. And there are cheaper options out there.
2) There has been minimal open forums to discuss this matter that were not entirely rigged by the county. Most forums were only along the Pike and not through the rest of the county including the higher tax brackets which will end up footing the bill for any shortfall.
3) The development was happening already given the land constraints in the county the Pike was the next spot happening anyway.
4) The county board refuses to put the trolley to a bond referendum meaning any money will come out of general revenue. Given that the voters of Arlington County have never rejected a bond referendum what does that tell you about how a majority of Arlington residents feel about this issue. (Note the county put a 1.5 million dollar dogpark through the bond referendum process but not the Trolley).
5) The county just reinstated library hours back to normal pre-2007 levels (via an increase in the library budget of 500K) because of the economy, yet, the trolley is going to run at least 8 million/yr budget deficit. I understand that public transit is subsidized for a reason. But, this is a want not a need.
6) The cost of constructing the project has doubled in the last 3 years and will likely double again before finishing. For a county of approximately 200,000 residents that works out to $2500/resident just on this project.
7) The county currently bumping up against is self-imposed debt cap which is concerning given the money this project will entail and the need for approximately 1 billion in capital projects over the next 10 years. Where is the money coming for that - especially in light of the likely reduction in government contractor spending coming down the pike.

In the end, this is going to happen. But, it might be the impetus for residents of Arlington to see the need for more than one-party rule in the county so that white elephants are hung around the neck of the county.

by Burger on Jul 20, 2012 4:15 pm • link • report

Questionable infrastructure strategies notwithstanding, this "one-party rule" talking point is starting to sound a little trite. I'm reminded of that bit from Bulworth: "What are you gonna do, vote Republican!? You're not gonna vote Republican!"

by J.D. Hammond on Jul 20, 2012 4:33 pm • link • report

Burger: County taxes don't have brackets. There's sales tax, car tax, restaurant tax and property tax. All of which are on a flat rate percentage of a basis. They aren't progressive.

The whole county pays to support Metro, Metrobus, ART (buses), libraries, schools, parks, police and fire department. The whole county paid to support building Metro through the Orange line corridor. Time to upgrade Columbia Pike.

The return on investment document uses assumptions for increase in land value and development to show how we are going to pay for the operating cost. $8 million a year to subsidize a transit line with as much capacity as this one is going to have is not too shabby.

by Michael Perkins on Jul 20, 2012 5:02 pm • link • report

How much more capacity will this have than the buses it's going to replace?

by J.D. Hammond on Jul 20, 2012 5:05 pm • link • report

JDH - the exact numbers are in the alternatives analysis

Its substantial because the Pike at rush hour is approach saturation in terms of transit vehicles. Only way to increase capacity on it is more capacity per vehicle, and the street cars accommodate many more passengers per vehicle than conventional buses. Which is why the most serious alternative is new articulated buses.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 20, 2012 5:49 pm • link • report

@ AWalkerInTheCity

"FFX is using a TIF and DTR tolls for the silver line"
County staff has strongly recommended against the use of TIF for Tysons and anything related to the Silver Line. Staff believes TIF should not be used except in blighted areas and is concerned TIF-backed bonds would be expensive. I don't think the Supervisors would move in that direction given opposition of the staff. And it's been months since the Tysons Partnership board has even discussed TIF. It looks dead to me.

by tmtfairfax on Jul 20, 2012 5:55 pm • link • report

Whatever you call the developer financing taking place with regard to the Silver Line.

I was responding to this

"There isn't money currently for heavy rail in Los Angeles, either, but that hasn't stopped Villaraigosa from pushing for financing innovations in order to get it. "

If you think there is a source available to finance a heavy rail metro line from Pentagon to Mark Center to Van Dorn Street, that would make additional in street transit on Columbia Pike superfluous, I'd be interested to hear it. If you think that the region is already doing a lot with creative financing, but that will not be enough for that metro line, you might want to concur with me.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 20, 2012 6:03 pm • link • report

My concern with the project is that virtually every place in DC that is getting streetcars is first having a phase with articulated buses. This is based on the theory that you increase transit capacity in increments: limited conventional bus -> frequent conventional bus -> articulated bus -> streetcar.

Considering that DC has far more experience with transit and urban planning, I'm concerned that Arlington isn't following DC's lead and instead leapfrogging articulated buses and going straight to streetcars. Why would this be a good idea for Arlington even though they're not doing it that way in DC?

by Falls Church on Jul 20, 2012 8:57 pm • link • report

"Considering that DC has far more experience with transit and urban planning,"

I'm not sure I buy that. Neither jurisdiction has experience with streetcars (excluding DC's from over a generation ago). Arlington runs its own bus system, DC does not. Both have been dealing with WMATA for about the same amount of time. As for urban planning in general, I think Arlington has been doing as well as or better than DC.

" I'm concerned that Arlington isn't following DC's lead and instead leapfrogging articulated buses and going straight to streetcars. Why would this be a good idea for Arlington even though they're not doing it that way in DC?"

DC didn't really determine to go to street cars till recently. Both jurisdictions are presumably influenced by the success of Portland, etc. Its not like DC has a long track record of doing bus-articulated bus-street car - I think its more that when DC went with articulated bus streetcar wasn't really seen as an option, even on the most likely routes.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 20, 2012 10:41 pm • link • report

I think its more that when DC went with articulated bus streetcar wasn't really seen as an option, even on the most likely routes.

I'm not talking about some point in the past. As of a few weeks ago DC was adding articulated buses to routes that will eventually have streetcars. Part of the reason they are doing this is that it takes a very long time to actually implement a streetcar and those corridors need immendiate relief. I'm not opposed to an eventual streetcar but why not put in articulated buses immediately even if the cost pushes back streetcars a few year years? Then you could move the articulated buses to the next burgeoning corridor when the streetcars go in.

by Falls Church on Jul 21, 2012 10:02 am • link • report

@ awalkerinthecity

Thank you for your clarification on TIF. I understand your point.

As far as expanding heavy rail in NoVA, in my opinion, I think the Dulles Rail experience will sour any other significant expansion of Metrorail in Virginia for some time. Heavy rail is extremely expensive; it doesn't reduce traffic congestion, at least when coupled with the extreme expansion in density around rail stations; the chief beneficiaries -- the landowners within the TOD areas won't pay their fair share of the costs (as measured by the benefits). That leaves the public to pay. I don't think they will have the stomach for that as Tysons plays out.

The current effort by the Fairfax Planning Commission to develop a plan to fund the billions needed to construct more road capacity and make substantially more bus transit to and from Tysons will, IMO, require significant tax increases and reductions in other county and school programs (most especially slowing the pace of school remodelling due to the competition for limited bond dollars). The staff proposal through 2050 would place 54% plus of the costs on the public. I think the public will not be happy, which will tamper the desires of politicians for more rail. I'm sure some will disagree, but I think this is the road map for the future in Fairfax County.

by tmtfairfax on Jul 21, 2012 4:07 pm • link • report

the landowners within the TOD areas won't pay their fair share of the costs (as measured by the benefits). That leaves the public to pay

The landowners will pay if you make them by simply telling them they must and they won't get the infrastructure. They'll pay because it still is a good investment for them. That's exactly what happened in Loudoun with the Board saying that either their silver line stations will be financed with special tax districts or there won't be any. Same thing happened with the Potomac Yard infill station. The fact that the all Repub Loudoun board approved the silver line stations shows that there is still an appetite for rail in Nova if financed properly. The next project should be light rail on 7 from Tysons to Old Town.

by Falls Church on Jul 21, 2012 4:47 pm • link • report

oy. I do not think analysis of the full costs of enabling Tysons Corner, a unique project, are relevant to every heavy rail extension. I also think that, as you have explained to me (for which I thank you) some of the road expansions attributed to the Tysons Corner project are things that were required anyway (such as the Rte 7 widening). However that does not mean that ALL the heavy rail projects people would like are possible in the next 30 years. I think an Orange Line extension shortly after Silver Line Phase 2 is very likely, and that soon we need to focus on a new metrorail river crossing from Rosslyn to Georgetown (possibly financed by a commuter tax) But I don't think a Pentagon-Mark Center-Van Dorn heavy rail will be coming soon enough to be a consideration vs the lighter transit options being considered for Col Pike and Beauregard. I note Penny Gross has expressed support for the FFX piece of the Col Pike Street Car line.

@FC
I'm not sure why Arlington did not look at a phased plan for articulated bus for a few years followed by light rail - I suspect it has something to do with maintenance facilities - you need, IIUC, special ones for articulated buses, and NoVa unlike DC, may not have other corridors that need them, so an articulated bus mtnce facility would be unutilized after Col Pike switches to street cars. Also, they may believe the can finance the Col Pike street car right away - DC has a lot of street car lines planned, and cannot finance them all at once.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 21, 2012 6:10 pm • link • report

@ awalkerinthecity

"oy. I do not think analysis of the full costs of enabling Tysons Corner, a unique project, are relevant to every heavy rail extension." But you are talking about elected officials deciding and ordinary citizens supporting the very expensive expansion of heavy rail, but then want them to do it in a vacumm. Given the Tysons experience, don't you think it would have a negative impact on further rail expansion in Virginia? If not, I really would like to know what I must be missing.

After the Tysons bills come due, why do you think people will want to step up and pay even more for another river crossing? I fully agree another crossing would be useful and could possibly add to capacity. But isn't the system still choked by the limited capacity on the Orange-Blue Line tracks in Downtown D.C.? Isn't there still a 27 train per hour (each direction) limit? Does building another Potomac River crossing also require construction of additional tunnels, stations and tracks? What is the price tag of that?

Finally, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion that the widening of Route 7 is separate from Tysons needs. I would agree the project is needed. However, VDOT removed it from its lists of projects because the Fairfax County Supervisors opposed it. When the new Comp Plan for Tysons was taking its final shape and VDOT had been beaten down by the Great Falls and McLean Citizens Associations on VDOT's plans to build a two-lane left turn from Route 7 to Georgetown Pike, things again changed. The Supervisors reversed themselves and voted 9-1 to add Route 7 to the Comp Plan's Table 7. Janet Howell and Barbara Comstock obtained $50 M from the State for planning the widening. Now the Planning Commission is working on a funding plan for Table 7. As it stands, it appears the recommendation to the Supervisors would be for the public sector to pay 90% of the costs for widening Route 7. Absent state or federal money, the costs fall to county taxpayers. Assuming this happens, don't you think they might be more skeptical of more heavy rail? Once the rest of the county understands they must pay higher taxes for an urban Tysons, Tysons will cloud everyone's thinking for years.

by tmtfairfax on Jul 22, 2012 9:52 am • link • report

FWIW, DC has been running articulated buses for decades. Because you get a bus and half's worth of riders with only one driver.

They run on the lines that have the most demand. For obvious reasons, for the most part, streetcars are proposed for the lines that have the most demand, which by the way are for the most part the lines which were originally streetcars.

I think that increased use of articulated buses on proposed streetcar lines likely has little to do with streetcar planning and a lot to do with meeting current demand more efficiently.

Probably the reason that articulated buses don't run on the 90s line is the comparatively narrow width of 8th St. NE/SE.

For the most part, articulated buses appear to run on 6 lane roads (2 lanes in each direction plus a parking lane in each direction).

I don't know if the hills on Columbia Pike would be an issue for articulated buses. The bridge over Union Station railyard is steep enough. Georgia Ave. is uphill going north and articulated buses are standard.

by Richard Layman on Jul 22, 2012 9:12 pm • link • report

If Fairfax doesn't want to use TIF, then they are stupid. There's no other excuse.

I ran into the same problem in Baltimore County. (It's probably why I didn't get a permanent job there.) WRT a proposed visionary redevelopment project (actually proposed by the neighborhood initiated community planning process) near RE Lee Park/Falls Road LR Station, the only way that they could do it is with TIF, which the county hasn't really done (except maybe at Owings Mills, and that is a state funded project).

I was pretty forceful about it, in a meeting with the person who ended up becoming the director of the planning office (after the guy that would likely have hired me if possible was forced out). I cooked my goose there.

Portland used TIF/the creation of an urban renewal district to fund the Yellow Line light rail.

Frankly, I think DC should designate the whole city an URD in order to fund the creation of the separated blue line.

by Richard Layman on Jul 22, 2012 9:17 pm • link • report

tmtfairfax -- FRANKLY @#E$R%T^Y&U*I Fairfax/Loudoun/State of Virginia should not have been allowed to build the SIlver Line without also taking care of the Potomac River Crossing issue.

I've written about this for 6+ years.

http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2006/09/blinking-on-urban-design-means-you.html

Devolution of expansion planning in 2003 separated responsibility by jurisdiction. So increasing demand in one part of the system increasing demand in others wasn't deemed the responsibility of the originating jurisdiction.

It's $%^&*()_ insane.

The Silver Line should have been used to also create the separated blue line with an additional River crossing and the addition of core capacity Downtown and the other stations.

by Richard Layman on Jul 22, 2012 9:25 pm • link • report

@ Richard Layman

You raise interesting points. TIF might be used in the Route 1 area, but only so long as the landowners are willing to pay an additional ad valorem tax in case TIF revenues are insufficient for the servicing of the revenue bonds. As I said earlier, TIF will not be used in Tysons. In fact, the landowners are now so split that they cannot form a tax district. The County will need to establish a sanitary district to collect additional revenues from the landowners, with those closet to the four stations paying most. Len Wales, debt manager for Fairfax County, is strongly against the use of TIF and has sold his position to the higher ups and the supervisors.

Clearly, another Potomac River crossing is needed and, as you state, should have been considered when our officials were debating the Silver Line. But, unfortunately for many, the powers that be saw the Silver Line only as a way to justify huge increases in density at Tysons and, to the extent possible, at Reston also. No one wanted to hear anything negative about the Silver Line. Some would have been happy with carts pulled by mules had the feds been willing to sign a full funding agreement. There will be a battle for capacity between the Orange and Silver Lines for the foreseeable future.

by tmtfairfax on Jul 23, 2012 6:47 pm • link • report